Project description:BACKGROUND:The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16). METHODS:A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol. RESULTS:A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS:This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the recommendation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) or ICS/LTRA as stepwise approaches in asthmatic children, there is a lack of published systematic review comparing the efficacy and safety of the two therapies in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) vs. montelukast (MON), or combination of montelukast and fluticasone (MFC) in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with bronchial asthma.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China BioMedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodical, and Wanfang for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to May 24, 2021. Interventions are as follows: SFC vs. MON, or combination of MFC, with no limitation of dosage or duration. Primary and secondary outcome measures were as follows: the primary outcome of interest was the risk of asthma exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included risk of hospitalization, pulmonary function, asthma control level, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). A random-effects (I2 ≥ 50%) or fixed-effects model (I2 < 50%) was used to calculate pooled effect estimates, comparing the outcomes between the intervention and control groups where feasible.ResultsOf the 1006 articles identified, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria with 2643 individuals; two were at low risk of bias. As no primary outcomes were similar after an identical treatment duration in the included studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. However, more studies favored SFC, instead of MON, owing to a lower risk of asthma exacerbation in the SFC group. As for secondary outcome, SFC showed a significant improvement of peak expiratory flow (PEF)%pred after 4 weeks compared with MFC (mean difference [MD]: 5.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-9.34; I2 = 95%; P = 0.006). As for asthma control level, SFC also showed a higher full-controlled level (risk ratio [RR]: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.24-1.85; I2 = 0; P < 0.001) and higher childhood asthma control test score after 4 weeks of treatment (MD: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.39-3.21; I2 = 72%; P < 0.001) compared with MFC.ConclusionsSFC may be more effective than MFC for the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents, especially in improving asthma control level. However, there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the use of SFC or MON in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with asthma. Further research is needed, particularly a combination of good-quality long-term prospective studies and well-designed RCTs.Prospero registration numberCRD42019133156.

Project description:ObjectivesThe present study was conducted to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate combination therapy (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL; Seretide® Evohaler®) in children with asthma.MethodsThis was an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase III trial and extension. Patients aged 4-12 years with reversible asthma [% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 60-100%; documented reversibility of ⩾15% in FEV1] were randomized to receive FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.) or FP/SAL (100/50 µg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. Eligible patients completing the 12-week core phase entered a 24-week extension phase with FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in predose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in predose to 2-hours postdose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), patient-reported outcomes, rescue-medication use and asthma exacerbations.ResultsIn total, 211 patients were randomized and 210 completed the core phase; of these patients, 208 entered and 205 completed the extension phase of the study. Predose FEV1 increased from day 0 to day 84 [FP/FORM, 182 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI), 127, 236; FP/SAL, 212 ml, 95% CI, 160, 265] and FP/FORM was noninferior to FP/SAL: least squares (LS) mean treatment difference: -0.031 (95% CI, -0.093, 0.031; p = 0.026). Secondary efficacy analyses indicated similar efficacy with both therapies. There were no notable differences observed in the safety and tolerability profile between treatments. No safety concerns were identified with long-term FP/FORM therapy, and there was no evidence of an effect of FP/FORM on plasma cortisol.ConclusionsFP/FORM improved lung function and measures of asthma control with comparable efficacy to FP/SAL, and demonstrated a favourable safety and tolerability profile in children aged 4-12 years.

Project description:BackgroundWhether cysteinyl-leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) have a similar antitussive effect to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA), and that LTRA plus ICS/LABA is superior to LTRAs alone or ICS/LABA alone in treating cough variant asthma (CVA) remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy of montelukast alone, budesonide/formoterol alone and the combination of both in the treatment of CVA.MethodsNinety-nine CVA patients were assigned randomly in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive montelukast (M group: 10 mg, once daily), budesonide/formoterol (BF group: 160/4.5 μg, one puff, twice daily), or montelukast plus budesonide/formoterol (MBF group) for 8 weeks. The primary outcomes were changes in the cough visual analogue scale (VAS) score, daytime cough symptom score (CSS) and night-time CSS, and the secondary outcomes comprised changes in cough reflex sensitivity (CRS), the percentage of sputum eosinophils (sputum Eos%) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). CRS was presented with the lowest concentration of capsaicin that induced at least 5 coughs (C5). The repeated measure was used in data analysis.ResultsThe median cough VAS score (median from 6.0 to 2.0 in the M group, 5.0 to 1.0 in the BF group and 6.0 to 1.0 in the MBF group, all p < 0.001), daytime CSS (all p < 0.01) and night-time CSS (all p < 0.001) decreased significantly in all three groups after treatment for 8 weeks. Meanwhile, the LogC5 and sputum Eos% improved significantly in all three groups after 8 weeks treatment (all p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the changes of the VAS score, daytime and night-time CSSs, LogC5 and sputum Eos% among the three groups from baseline to week 8 (all p > 0.05). The BF and MBF groups also showed significant decreases in FeNO after 8 weeks treatment (p = 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively), while no significant change was found in the M group (p = 0.457). Treatment with MBF for 8 weeks significantly improved the FEV1/FVC as well as the MMEF% pred and decreased the blood Eos% (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsMontelukast alone, budesonide/formoterol alone and a combination of both were effective in improving cough symptom, decreasing cough reflex sensitivity and alleviating eosinophilic airway inflammation in patients with CVA, and the antitussive effect and anti-eosinophilic airway inflammation were similar. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01404013.

Project description:IntroductionIn recognition of the value of long-term real-world data, a postauthorization safety study of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®) was conducted.MethodsThis was a 12-month observational study of outpatients with asthma aged ⩾ 12 years in eight European countries. Patients were prescribed fluticasone/formoterol according to the licensed indication, and independently of their subsequent enrolment in the study. They were then treated according to local standard practice. The study objectives were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone/formoterol under real-world conditions.ResultsThe safety population for this study comprised 2539 patients (mean age 47.7 years; 94.3% aged ⩾ 18 years; 63.4% female). Most patients (1538/2539, 60.6%) had switched to fluticasone/formoterol from another ICS/LABA, primarily due to lack of efficacy (1150/2539, 45.3%). Three quarters (77.4%) of patients were treated for 12 months, and 80.6% continued fluticasone/formoterol treatment after the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60.0% patients, and 10.2% had AEs considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol [most commonly asthma exacerbation (2.0% patients), dysphonia (1.8%) and cough (1.1%)]. Thirty-six severe AEs, but no serious AEs, were considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma (based on Asthma Control Test score ⩾ 20) increased from 29.4% at baseline to 67.4% at study end (last observation carried forward). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one severe exacerbation decreased from 35.8% in the year prior to enrolment to 9.8% during the study. Improvements from baseline to study end were also observed in Asthma Quality of Life scores and physician/patient reports of satisfaction with treatment.ConclusionIn this real-world postauthorization safety study, fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials, with effectiveness in improving asthma control.

Dataset Information

An efficacy and safety evaluation of montelukast + fluticasone propionate vs. fluticasone propionate in the treatment of cough variant asthma in children: a meta-analysis

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets